General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEric Boehlert: When the press trusted Trump's war intel -- but not Biden's
https://pressrun.media/p/when-the-press-trusted-trumps-warWhen the press trusted Trumps war intel but not Bidens
Not a great look
Eric Boehlert
The Biden administration got it right.
The unfolding Ukraine crisis has been a clear victory for U.S. intelligence. The decision to rapidly declassify secret intelligence effectively blunted Russian President Vladimir Putins plans to use disinformation and lies as instruments of war. It also helped President Joe Biden bolster NATO allies during the run-up to the invasion.
Whats curious is that weeks ago the Beltway press angrily brayed at the White House, suggesting they were cooking up wild claims about Russia and not producing the intelligence to back up the allegations. Yet just years earlier, the same press corps raised no such concerns when the Trump White House engaged in baseless claims about a cooked-up foreign policy crisis.
The idea that journalists should always question authority, especially when the issue is war, remains a sound and important one. The question is, why did journalists aggressively press Biden officials about war intel but give the Trump team a total pass? Why does the D.C. press have two different standards when dealing with Democratic and Republican administrations?
snip//
It makes no sense for the press to hold the Biden White House to a higher intel standard than the Trump one. Especially when the GOP lied about everything.
gab13by13
(20,879 posts)MSNBC (COMCAST) 2 major share holders are BlackRock and Vanguard.
LenaBaby61
(6,965 posts)aocommunalpunch
(4,223 posts)Is it?
hvn_nbr_2
(6,481 posts)live love laugh
(13,009 posts)lame54
(35,141 posts)Mr. Ected
(9,670 posts)This is where capitalism and democracy clash in the worst way possible. In order to do our civic duty as Americans and make informed decisions, we must be able to trust our news sources. The bias injected into the news renders it subjective and useless.
Lonestarblue
(9,881 posts)Republicans have tried to kill both organizations for decades, and they are now just shadows of their former selves. When W. And Republicans cut funding, they were forced to turn to big business for donations. David Koch was one of those donors. The news is now pretty much pablum, and some on-air personalities Ive heard on NPR have publicly used Republican talking points. We need to re-fund public news and get the partisan donors who demand censorship rights put of the public news business.
Rebl2
(13,311 posts)ago I got a fund raising request from local PBS in the mail. I wrote on the form you would send in with a check, as long as you have one of the Koch brothers as a donor I will not give you money. I never got another request for a donation from them.
msfiddlestix
(7,266 posts)Tommymac
(7,263 posts)It took the Union effort of the early to mid 20th Century to reign in the Robber Baron's who controlled the press. Ever hear of Yellow Journalism?
Also, Sinclair's expose on the meat industry helped hugely in creating a more independent media.
Time will tell if someone can once again wrest the Third Estate away from the control of the 1%.
Raygun and Movement Conservative Propaganda broke the Unions in the 1980's in the public's mind. The 1% has had free reign ever since.
One gets what one pays for. Union's are still reeling today due to the public's and politician's from both parties acceptance of Management/Movement Conservatives propaganda.
XacerbatedDem
(511 posts)Accountability in government would shake up the whole system. How did that ever get into effect in the first place?
Yeah, I know, we were talking about the media, but if you ask me, dark money is definitely there, also.
BumRushDaShow
(127,331 posts)when the previous administration ceased having press conferences at all and pretty much closed up the James Brady Press Briefing room in the WH.
ancianita
(35,816 posts)Unless it's profitable to be objective there won't ever be objective corporate owned media.
Real information and documentation comes from those sources dedicated to just that, not profit.
Corroboration from other corporate owned media is still biased, too. Americans are naive to believe corporations that say they can be objective. They are narrators. Story tellers. Purveyors of profitable FUD.
Roy Rolling
(6,856 posts)News mixed with bells and whistles for entertainment value attracts sponsor$.
Free media doesnt exist, its all paid for by something or somebody.
If we dont like what they broadcast, fault the sponsorsthey pay for it.
Stop blaming the media. Change the channel or whatever and boycott/bankrupt the sponsors.
Tommymac
(7,263 posts)Low info folks just don't have the skills or the time to realize they are watching disinformation.
And the 1% knows this so they keep the public education system in the crapper.
In a commercial environment, bankrupting the sponsors is the only effective method to deal with Joe Sixpack.
In an authoritarian environment, they just bomb radio and TV stations to silence them.
They must be silenced, and the blurring of free speech with commercial/political speech by the SCOTUS is the root of the problem in the U.S.
Republicans equate free speech with paid political announcements, as long as those paid announcements have the veneer of public service.
XacerbatedDem
(511 posts)Some people say watch the advertisers and boycott them, but it's not just the advertisers' funding that keeps these media outlets open. Still, you're right, change the channel, though it's not going to get much better on the other networks. And isn't that how Fux Skews got started, offering it's own brand of BS? Because people didn't like what was on the other stations?
spooky3
(34,304 posts)ThoughtCriminal
(14,011 posts)Yes, the corporate-owned media has a pro-right bias, but there's another issue:
Democratic administrations do not threaten, intimidate, and withhold access when they are criticized.
Republican administrations whine loudly about "Liberal bias" to "Work the Refs", and deny access that journalists need.
Journalists covering Trump were physically assaulted and received death threats.
The tendency of the media to cover "both sides" as if all arguments had equal validity - whether it is foreign policy, public health, the economy, or whether the Earth is flat.
Martin Eden
(12,805 posts)That reminds me of a Paul Krugman column about the press coverage of GW Bush's economic assertions when he was running against AL Gore in 2000. The numbers just didn't add up, but the press was treating those assertions with equal validity in the quest to be "fair and balanced."
Krugman remarked something to the effect that if Bush claimed the world was flat the headlines the next day would be "Shape of Earth -- views differ."
onecaliberal
(32,489 posts)Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)The RW has manipulated the M$M with their melodramatic outrage over any factual reporting that, naturally & correctly, makes them look bad. So the M$M is constantly trying to appease the RW with into false equivalencies and holding Dems to far higher standards.
It has a major influence on the populace, contributing greatly to making ours a sorely misinformed (actually disinformed) citizenry.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)With their own Shit!
Fucking Magatraitor lapdogs.
monkeyman1
(5,109 posts)side there on at the moment ! all depends on click- bait ! the lowest form of human being could take a scratch pad & walk around & scribble shit ! the next day put on the internet & people would believe it ! gooper's bit into tdfg scam lock ,stock , barrel ! guess that's why all of them are copping a plea deal
spanone
(135,637 posts)Journalism as we knew it, Cronkite & ilk, is no longer sought out or demanded by the owners of media. It's all profit.
IMHO
betsuni
(25,140 posts)Biden hiding crucial intelligence, why didn't he stop the invasion? Something like that. Can't win.